At least since 2001, a prime goal of the U.S. national interest has been
reducing the influence and power of "terrorist" groups which have shown
themselves willing and capable of attacking U.S. territory and nationals. Among
these groups are al-Qaeda and its derivatives, al-Nusra, and ISIS (the so-called
Islamic State). How to properly achieve this goal is open to debate (for
instance, the use of drones to kill their leaders almost certainly makes the
U.S. more enemies than it eliminates), but one sure way of not addressing
this national interest is adopting policies that benefit the very groups that
are your sworn foes, or turning a blind eye to alleged "allies" who aid
them.

This might sound like common sense, however in practice, U.S. government's
policies in the region have for decades been counter-productive and plagued by
special interest intervention. In other words, U.S. politicians and bureaucrats
have pushed policies that have actually aided America's foes.

Before 2001, the U.S. had long pursued policies that supported a range of
unpopular Middle East dictatorships. The spectrum ran from the Saudi Monarchy
with its fanatical fundamentalist worldview to more secular dictatorships such
as the one in Egypt. This practice identified us in the popular mind with bad
people and bad governments and made us the enemy of those seeking liberty and
democracy. In addition, we supported the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians
and that made us unpopular with, among others, almost every Muslim on the
planet. None of this was in the America's genuine national interest but it
certainly was in the interest of special interests such as Zionists, oil
companies and arms manufacturers.

- Advertisement -

That there was (and remains) a difference between special interests and
national interests should have been crystal clear when the pursuit of
lobby-driven policies earned the U.S. the 9/11 attacks. One can make a disgusted
face and assert that this assessment "blames the victim," but that is just
burying one's head in the sand. The outrages of 9/11 were not in response to
Islamic teachings, they were in response to Washington's awful policy
choices.

Then, instead of responding to those attacks with a policy review, U.S.
leaders quickly compounded the problem by adopting a policy of regime
change which resulted in the invasion of Iraq -- a country that had nothing
to do with bringing down the World Trade Center towers, but was on the Israeli
and neoconservative hit list. Washington's attack on Iraq created a gigantic
power vacuum in the heartland of the Middle East, which, in turn, allowed the
growth of such present-day threats as ISIS and al-Nusra. These groups are
extremist in character and are inspired by the conquests of the 18th-century
religious fanatic Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of the religious sect
adhered to by the Saudis. That is why ISIS and others like it are going after
anyone who is not a practitioner of the Wahhabi brand of Sunni Islam -- including
the Syrians and their government, the Iraqi Shiites and their government, the
Kurds, and a good number of the Lebanese.

The Saudis are giving these fanatics lots of money because they are
religiously kindred and can be used as vehicles for spreading Wahhabi dogma
throughout the the Middle East while weakening (usually by mass slaughter)
non-Sunni populations. Israel (the nation that, according
to Prime Minister Netanyahu, is leading the fight against al-Qaeda in the
Middle East) is aiding these same groups because it sees them as preferable to
the Assad government in Syria, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and the Shiite
governments of Iraq and Iran. This is a big mistake on the part of the Israelis,
who are essentially inviting Wahhabi radicals to be their northern neighbor, but
no one has ever accused the Zionists of clear-sighted, long-range
planning.

Part II -- Changing alliances

As a consequence of this situation, there has been a major shift of
alliances that has stunned and paralyzed the Obama administration. The enemy has
certainly remained the same: the fanatics whose lineage can be traced back to
Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks of 2001. However, who is now allied with
these "bad guys" and who is allied against them has radically altered. For
anyone with the ability to look at the situation objectively, that change should
have profound implications for U.S. foreign policy.

- Advertisement -

If the enemy is real and persistent, then those opposing it should
warrant U.S. assistance. Who are these enemies of America's enemies? They are
now the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, whose government is under attack by
al-Nusra and other al-Qaeda-like forces; Hezbollah, which has come to the aid of
al-Assad; the Shiite government of Iraq, which, along with the Kurds, is under
attack by ISIS; and the Shiite government of Iran, which has come to the aid of
Iraq.

It is doubtful that many Americans know of this line-up of forces because
they have often been misled by their own media. For instance, a recent
CNN program entitled "Who ls Doing What in the Coalition Battle Against
ISIS" lists such countries as Australia, Canada and even Belgium and Iceland but
never mentions Syria, Iraq (except for the Kurds) or Iran. Either the folks at
CNN are being disingenuous or they are living on another planet.

Likewise, those now aiding America's enemies should not warrant the kind
of relationship that has bound Washington to them in the past. Who are these
countries who are now friends of America's enemies? They are Saudi Arabia,
Israel, and most of the Gulf Arabs. But how would Americans know this to be the
case? Saudi Arabia, whose citizens are major funders of ISIS, is listed by CNN
as fighting against the Islamic State. How about Israel's tawdry role in this
affair? Except for a few isolated stories in a limited number of newspapers you
won't find any attention being paid to the growing connection between the
Zionist state and these enemies of the U.S.

Are there people in the U.S. government who understand this new turn of
events? Of course there are. However, my guess is that most of them reside in
the middle echelons of the State Department, where they have little or no impact
on policy. How about those in the upper echelons of the foreign policy
bureaucracy or the various foreign policy committees of the Congress? No
enlightenment there. Traditionally these people can't think their way out of the
paper bag put over their heads by special interests.

What this means that the chance that U.S. foreign policy will adjust to
this new and important situation in the Middle East is low. Those in Congress
who are financially or ideologically tied to the Zionists, as well as
neoconservative dogmatists, are too set in their ways to understand that the
landscape has changed. President Obama and some in his administration may well
be aware of the situation but are, apparently, immobilized by the political
risks of actually acting on their knowledge what is really in the national
interest.